Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mj01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 863EC380000B6; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:34:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UDGLu-0008Bk-Si for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:33:58 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UDGLu-0008Bb-Dc for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:33:58 +0000 Received: from out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.243]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UDGLr-0007K7-Tg for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:33:57 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApQBAFhcN1ECZMUt/2dsb2JhbAANN4ghuUeCW4Fugx0BAQEBAyMPAQVRCwkPAgIFFgsCAgkDAgECAUUTCAEBsTVxkmuBI4wogUgWgheBEwOWS5N4gXI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,795,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="64711026" Received: from host-2-100-197-45.as13285.net (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([2.100.197.45]) by out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2013 15:33:34 +0000 Message-ID: <513761CD.8070107@psk31.plus.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:33:33 +0000 From: g3zjo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <51371E11.6020502@psk31.plus.com> <513746F3.7090508@psk31.plus.com> <84B77AD08F5F42849E6492B9048EC349@IBM7FFA209F07C> <51375C40.6050501@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <51375C40.6050501@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130306-0, 06/03/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Stefan On 06/03/2013 15:09, Stefan Schäfer wrote: > Eddie, Gary, Chris, Minto, MF, > > I've read a bit about RTTY and AMTOR in Wikipedia. Maybe AMTOR would > help us a bit more, even when not used in that ARQ mode but also in > beacon stile, due to the FEC? > MultiPSK has AMTOR with FEC, yes we don't want ARQ do we. I have run it, same width as RTTY the FEC may help but its just as fast it is QSO mode. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: e90dcb17768c7e768f13e0721cc1c0c7 Subject: Re: LF: RTTY vs. AMTOR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d7b9551376215430a X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Stefan On 06/03/2013 15:09, Stefan Schäfer wrote: > Eddie, Gary, Chris, Minto, MF, > > I've read a bit about RTTY and AMTOR in Wikipedia. Maybe AMTOR would > help us a bit more, even when not used in that ARQ mode but also in > beacon stile, due to the FEC? > MultiPSK has AMTOR with FEC, yes we don't want ARQ do we. I have run it, same width as RTTY the FEC may help but its just as fast it is QSO mode. Again I will ask the question, why is MFSK not being considered I am running it at the moment on 478.200. MFSK4 is on Fldigi can you try it now.? Eddie > Eddie, what was the name of the program that offers that mode for > free? I cannot find your recent email where you already mentioned it. > > 73, Stefan > >